Fantasy Chancellor Game

[vetran]

Poor comparison, lots of things which are publicly owned have similar improvements thanks to computerisation. I can pay my taxes and see it online in a day or so. I can request a tip/skip permit on my local council and it arrives in minutes.

Blimey you are easily pleased.

Except BT was privatised in 1984, by the 90s it had changed all its exchanges, suppliers and improved its SLAs to days not months. It was providing ADSL in the early 00s that was ordered online. Before privatisation they hadn't changed the wiring since the 50s.

Government Gateway, the security system that enabled HMRC online was launched in 2001 a mere 28 years after the launch of the internet. From memory online tax return was about 2010 and still shaky until about 2017.

I was working on customer portals in the 00s, you could order an ISP service, pay for it and have it provisioned without a human in late 2000. We were a big team, there were 3 of us and a dog working from our back rooms and a pub!


I bet your skip permit facility turned up in about 2015 a mere 38 years after the launch of the internet. This was a couple of years after the government digital strategy which finally launched a fire under local government.

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...gital-strategy

Note many of these council services were just an email form to the responsible person.

[Protagoras]

If the CEGB was still going maybe we could build our own power stations instead of asking the French or Chinese to do it.

AFAIR, plans for 6 new nuclear power stations were shelved at privatisation; they would still be running today.

[vetran]

How come other countries manage to do a better job than the privatised businesses in the UK?
Japanese trains
French Electricity
Almost any country's water supply leakage
Almost any country's waste water

What group do you blame for other countries doing a far better job than here?

You're right, if you want good services, you need money to pay for it. Unfortunately the services we have are more concerned about paying shareholders than about investing in good services for the future.

You're also right, than in the early 2000s a phone line could be connected in a day.
Do you know how long it takes now? About 6 weeks, involving at least 2 different private companies.

First because our governments are crap at managing pretty much everything. They also don't make nationalised companies actually work for their money.

Our nationalised sewage system was the envy of the world back when Bazelgette finished it, nationalised and private companies have lived off it ever since. In 10 years the Gates foundation have brought sewage forward further than any British water company they can even make money from sewage which might please the shareholders.

BT threw away business just after privatisation they quickly realised that the American companies were eating their lunch in the 80s.

I said reconnect - they disconnected it when someone moved and then took 6 weeks to reconnect it (10 second punch-down in the exchange) this was achieved within a day in the early 90s.

You are talking about a new connection which requires planning permission etc. It took me 12 weeks to get 30 ISDN lines laid by part of what became NTL in the 90s (there was a JCB & everything) BT were about the same in the early 00s.

[vetran]

Oh yeh, it's in the DM. Sorry, Vetran, beat you to it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-patients.html

not a problem truth will out.

• South Central Ambulance Trust spent the most – £30million last year at an average cost of £438 a trip;

seems a lot of cash for a ride to the local hospital. Locally they used to want volunteers willing to do it for about 30-40p a mile.

Reminds me of the hospitals complaining the cleaners were rubbish but they kept signing off the invoices.

One does wonder if all those nice people with mobility cars couldn't do it.

[WTFH]

I said reconnect - they disconnected it when someone moved and then took 6 weeks to reconnect it (10 second punch-down in the exchange) this was achieved within a day in the early 90s.

You are talking about a new connection which requires planning permission etc. It took me 12 weeks to get 30 ISDN lines laid by part of what became NTL in the 90s (there was a JCB & everything) BT were about the same in the early 00s.

No, I’m not talking about needing planning permission, etc. I’m talking about someone moving into a house and wanting to plug a phone in to an existing socket and have a working number. The cables are already there.
The phone companies aim to do it in 2-3 weeks, but my recent experience was that it took 6 weeks. The BT Openreach part of it costs £140, even though all they have to do is the “10 second punch-down in the exchange”.
Because there are multiple private companies involved who are answerable to their shareholders, the paying customer loses out. Tulip service, a bit like the tulip being pumped into our rivers.

[vetran]

No, I’m not talking about needing planning permission, etc. I’m talking about someone moving into a house and wanting to plug a phone in to an existing socket and have a working number. The cables are already there.
The phone companies aim to do it in 2-3 weeks, but my recent experience was that it took 6 weeks. The BT Openreach part of it costs £140, even though all they have to do is the “10 second punch-down in the exchange”.
Because there are multiple private companies involved who are answerable to their shareholders, the paying customer loses out. Tulip service, a bit like the tulip being pumped into our rivers.

oh well every time or anyone I know moved the number was changed and it worked on the first day. You must be special.

[BlasterBates]

How come other countries manage to do a better job than the privatised businesses in the UK?
Japanese trains
French Electricity
Almost any country's water supply leakage
Almost any country's waste water

What group do you blame for other countries doing a far better job than here?

You're right, if you want good services, you need money to pay for it. Unfortunately the services we have are more concerned about paying shareholders than about investing in good services for the future.

You're also right, than in the early 2000s a phone line could be connected in a day.
Do you know how long it takes now? About 6 weeks, involving at least 2 different private companies.

Japanese rail companies are private. The problem is that if a utility is publically owned the tax payer needs to provide money up front to pay for new investments. If a government owns too many utilities it becomes unaffordable.

For example French electricity:

https://www.reuters.com/business/ene...ks-2022-12-09/

Years of under-investment in the nuclear sector mean that there is precious little spare capacity to meet demand while reactors are offline for maintenance.

[WTFH]

Japanese rail companies are private.

Apart from Hokkaido, Shikuko, freight, and the construction of lines which are run by a dokugyo - an independent agency which runs the operations of the business, while the government ministers and agencies look at the planning.

Here, have a read: https://www.jrtt.go.jp/english/about.html

[Protagoras]

The problem is that if a utility is publically owned the tax payer needs to provide money up front to pay for new investments. If a government owns too many utilities it becomes unaffordable.

+1
Ideally, one wants the government to own utility companies which are natural monopolies and / or where there is a universal service provision that would not efficiently be provided by a market driven approach.

They should generate a sufficient level of profit to cater for investment and debt servicing, but with the benefit that borrowing is at an advantageous rate since it's government backed.
Any utility company needs a long term programme of asset renewal and development which requires some level of borrowing; this is obviously particularly the case with nuclear power.

Of course there's a view that government deficit and / or debt are a bad thing. Personally I think it depends on the nature; debt for long term investment in infrastructure should not be seen as negative, in general. Debt for current expenditure, bailouts, failed initiatives is simply wasteful!

[vetran]

+1
Ideally, one wants the government to own utility companies which are natural monopolies and / or where there is a universal service provision that would not efficiently be provided by a market driven approach.

They should generate a sufficient level of profit to cater for investment and debt servicing, but with the benefit that borrowing is at an advantageous rate since it's government backed.
Any utility company needs a long term programme of asset renewal and development which requires some level of borrowing; this is obviously particularly the case with nuclear power.

Of course there's a view that government deficit and / or debt are a bad thing. Personally I think it depends on the nature; debt for long term investment in infrastructure should not be seen as negative, in general. Debt for current expenditure, bailouts, failed initiatives is simply wasteful!

Openreach and Transco are near monopolies they aren't terrible.